The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the crrcu1rrstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings in C C No. 6596 of 2024 On tne fite of the Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioners/ accused; l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/ accused in C.C, No. 6596 of 2024 On the file of the Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad; ' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.VIVEKANAND, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'I ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRT JUS'IICE J.SREE \ IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETIl'I ON No.17285 oI' ,. l.25 Datc:22.12.2025 Between: Mirza lmran Baig and threc others AND Petitio ners State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecuror, High Court ofTelangana at Hyderabad and another Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the pcti ioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in ,_,C.No.6596 of 2024 on the file of the leamed VII Additionat Chjt I Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri C.Vivekanand, leamed counsel for the pctitioners and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional publir: l)rosecutor for respondent No. I .

3. The specific allegation against the petitioner; accused Nos.l to 4 is that they have procured PDS rice from the rcneficiaries at 2 cheaper rate to sell the same for profit and on 14.03.2024, the petitioners rvere found in possession of 48 quintals of PDS rice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any complaint tiom any beneficiary, alleging that the rice was procured deceptively or with a criminal intent and charging the petitioners fbr prosecution is untenable and improper. The allegations, cven taken at their face value cannot be sustained against the petitioncrs. Further, this Court in Crl.P.No.5709 of 2019 and 3349 of 20 l5 while considering the same situation, categorically obscrved that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petltroners.

5. The leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution, the offence said to have becn committed by the petitioners is cheating and violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, I 95 5 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act contemplate that any person contravenes with the production, J supply, distribution and trade of essential comr rodities or abetment in this regard, is punishable. As per the lrosecution, the petitioners have procured PDS rice fiom the I )neflciaries after supply itom the dealer.

7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.p 1o.1227 of 2025 has considered the identical facts and observeci r ,rat "There is no averment indicating that the petitioner in ny,,vay deceptivt:ly induced the beneficianes to part with the upplierl PDS rice or the beneficiary entrusted the pDS rice purr I ascd bv them with the petitioner and they clishonestly misappro r iated or converterl to their own use or used it in i,iolation of laulul direction or contract. ln the absence of essential facto -r , on the face ofprosecution, this Court finds it to be a fit case tr, :xercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 ol BNSS, 2023. Thus. continuance of proceedings against the pctitioner is i ruse of process of Iaw".

8. The facts and circumstances of the prese rr: case also similar to those in the above case and hence, this C r urt finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Se(:t on -52g of BNSS by applying the same analogy and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. 9 . Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allov. ,rl and rhe proceedings in C.C.No.6596 of 2024 on the file ol .he learned ,,,?/. 4 l-: VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4, are hereby quashed Pending miscellancous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI A SISTANT REGIST /iTRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Vlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad 3. The Station House Officer, Mirchowk P.S., Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRl. C VIVEKANAND Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two CD Copies VSM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 a r) TA ( O(J 2lr JAt't 2$6 :?i .C) 'f!,^'r ORDER CRLP.No.17285 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON q .rvw' Yv {\t\a'